As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Friday, September 28, 2012

PBS Ombudsman Laments Association with Truthers

What actually interests me about this new round of 9/11 conspiracy films
is not that CPT12 is showing it. Rather, it is the association with PBS
that it generates, and with PBS's unwillingness or inability to
separate itself more clearly from the production and distribution of
such programs. There have been other such cases, especially involving
programming for pledge drives. PBS is among the more widely trusted
brand-names in the country, so an association with PBS tends to convey
legitimacy to viewers, and some of them feel deceived and get upset, as
most of the letters below demonstrate.

He notes that Gage's gaggle uses the PBS logo on their page announcing CPT12's broadcast of Expert's Speak Out.

BTW, he also mentions:

"The evidence is overwhelming," says professor Lynn Margulis, one of the experts.

As most of you probably know, Margulis was an expert in biology, which, if the Truthers believed that nano-termites brought down the towers, might actually be a relevant field. I checked the Wikipedia entry on Margulis, and it turns out that 9-11 Denialism isn't her only bit of kookery:

Margulis later argued that "there's no evidence that HIV is an
infectious virus" and that AIDS symptoms "overlap ... completely" with
those of syphilis.

179 Comments:

Gosh...whom to trust about NIST and the scientific method: a National Medal of Science winner and Carl Sagan's ex-wife, or a fat lonely tract home dweller with no scientific credentials or credibility whatsoever?

You can substantiate your claim that she denied Darwin, rather than supplementing him, I suppose? It's really a hoot when people get their scientific opinions from anonymous internet posters who claim unverifiable credentials.

UtterFail, people who have engineering degrees are considered engineers. Lots of engineers work as technical writers. All engineers have the same basic science core in physics and mathematics--except the software "engineers" of course and they are not considered engineers.

The concerns with the buildings' collapse mechanism are simply a matter of basic physics that all engineers understand.

HVAC engineers bring a particular asset to the study of the collapses--their knowledge that HVAC ducts could not have delivered high-pressure air jets to isolated windows as the debunkers like to claim they did.

Furthermore, evaluation of the collapse mechanism is not needed to see the deficiency of the NIST report. We only have half a report! Though NIST's objective was to explain "why and how" the buildings collapsed, they have admitted that they can not explain how. "We are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse," they said.

We need further investigations that explain the total collapses. Otherwise the suspicion will remain that NIST covered up defective engineering or shoddy construction--or worse.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...All engineers have the same basic science core in physics and mathematics--except the software 'engineers' of course and they are not considered engineers."

How would you know? After all, you're a college dropout.

And, of course, once again you're citing yourself as an authority, liar.

I'm a computer scientist. I took all the core courses that any scientist or engineer takes in the first two years of undergrad studies--including two years of calculus (with a course in advanced linear algebra) and physics for scientists and engineers.

See? You have no idea what you're talking about.

But that's beside the point--a red herring.

A group of compulsive liars and delusional conspiracy nuts are hardly qualified to "verify" the weather let alone professional credentials.

The "verifications" should be performed by a third party, not Richard Gage and his gaggle of charlatans, delusional, perverts and compulsive liars.

Electronics engineers, software engineers, HVAC "engineers," etc., are not qualified to determine the collapse mechanism for a building.

You're full-of-shit. And your contrarian nonsense is as transparent as the air between your filthy, unwashed ears.

UtterFail, if no competent structural engineer would investigate the collapse, then why did NIST make explaining "why and how" the buildings collapsed one of their objectives?

The collapse mechanism has not been explained. NIST acknowledges that "We are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse."

The symmetry, totality and speed of collapse have not been explained; the pulverization of the concrete, the squibs, the arrested rotation of the tipping top on WTC2, and the collapses of the lower cores after they had survived the initial collapses have not been explained; the source of the sulfur in the FEMA Appendix C samples has not been explained, and the melted steel seen in the rubble has not been explained.

None of those things have been explained.

Where did you get the idea that I dropped out of college?

Some CS degrees require physics, some don't. Software engineers do not qualify as engineers among the architects and engineers. You, for instance, clearly have no understanding of the physics you claim to have studied.

Signing the petition calling for a new investigation is hardly a matter of determining the collapse mechanism. All that is necessary is to understand the obvious failings of the NIST report.

ALL computer science degrees require the same core courses that any scientist or engineer is required to take in the first two years of college--including two years of calculus, one year or more of college-level chemistry and two years of physics for scientists and engineers.

That's why computer scientists are members of the scientific community.

Wikipedia wrote--and I quote:

"...A computer scientist is a scientist who has acquired knowledge of computer science, the study of the theoretical foundations of information and computation" -- Wikipedia

See? You have no idea what you're talking about, jackass.

FAIL

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...You, for instance, clearly have no understanding of the physics you claim to have studied."

Too bad you can provide evidence to support that assertion, ass.

I, on the other hand, can prove that you're a charlatan.

Tell us more about ΔT, charlatan.

FAIL

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...Signing the petition calling for a new investigation is hardly a matter of determining the collapse mechanism."

UtterFail, NIST did not explain the collapse mechanism. They claimed that they got collapse initiation, and they assumed that this led to total progressive collapse, but they didn't explain how. And they dodged the 9 mysteries of the collapse that I listed above.

Tufts University and U of MN offer Computer Science degrees that do not require physics.

RGT can post his evidence, but your cloud of farteous spam reduces the pressure on him to do so.

NIST acknowledges that "We are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse."

The symmetry, totality and speed of collapse have not been explained; the pulverization of the concrete, the squibs, the arrested rotation of the tipping top on WTC2, and the collapses of the lower cores after they had survived the initial collapses have not been explained; the source of the sulfur in the FEMA Appendix C samples has not been explained, and the melted steel seen in the rubble has not been explained.

"...Condi was responsible to prevent 9/11. The CIA briefed her on 5/30 and 7/10. There was the famous 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US' memo on 8/6. There were all the other PDBs now under discussion. She did nothing. The CIA's Cofer Black said 'We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.' The CIA's Tenet and Blee said that if she had acted, 9/11 might have been prevented." -- Brian "drag queen for 9/11 troof" Good, lying his ass off at time stamp 20 September, 2012 08:17

"Condi committed perjury when she told the 9/11 Commission that the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in﻿ US' memo was not a warning. It warned of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks in the US. She got strong warnings from the CIA on 5/30 and 7/10; Tenet and Blee agreed that had she acted, 9/11 could have been prevented. Cofer Black said 'We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.' See my video 'Condi﻿ Lied Under Oath to the 9/11 Widows.'" -- "punxsutawneybarney"

Now stop changing the subject and answer the question, scum.bag:

So goat fucker, you're either a plagiarist or "punxsutawneybarney." So which is it, scum.bag? Take your pick.

Changing the subject again, I see. I showed that you lied about the Computer Science degree, lied about the NIST report, lied about the credentials of the architects and engineers, and lied about my college education.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...NIST did not explain the collapse mechanism. They claimed that they got collapse initiation, and they assumed that this led to total progressive collapse, but they didn't explain how. And they dodged the 9 mysteries of the collapse that I listed above."

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...I showed that you lied about the Computer Science degree, lied about the NIST report, lied about the credentials of the architects and engineers, and lied about my college education."

No, you cited yourself as an authority.

Besides you're a proven compulsive liar, so nothing you say can be trusted.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...Thanks for proving my point, GutterBall. NIST's #1 objective was to explain "why and how" the buildings collapsed. They never explained how. They admitted they couldn't do it."

More contrarian SPAM, liar?

You claimed--and I quote: "...NIST did not explain the collapse mechanism."

That assertion is FALSE.

The NIST Report is a detailed analysis of the collapse mechanism, as the link and the quote I provide proves beyond a doubt.

Again, jackass:

"...[T]he WTC Investigation Team stands solidly behind the collapse mechanisms for each tower and the sequences of events (from aircraft impact to collapse) as described in the report." -- NIST

Learn to read, jackass.

FAIL.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...Please explain how this mechanism explains the 9 mysteries I identified."

The "9 mysteries" DO NOT exist. They exist in your diseased mind and your diseased mind only. Again, NIST is NOT compelled to answer your insane and irrelevant questions.

FAIL.

See? You're a fuck up. Is it any wonder that you're a college dropout, failed janitor, sex predator, Internet vandal and delusional compulsive liar?

Brian Good from Palo Alto California said: It's really a hoot when people get their scientific opinions from anonymous internet posters who claim unverifiable credentials.

yeah just like you have done here many times mr. Snug.butt. In fact, it was due to others exposing you as Brian Good that you finally accepted it. If you could do the same thing with your other aliases, but no, you are not man enough.Changing the subject again, I see. I showed that you lied about the Computer Science degree, lied about the NIST report, lied about the credentials of the architects and engineers, and lied about my college education.

Nobody agrees with you Brian Petgoat, the only one showed to lie here is no other than Brian Goo Snug.butt.

Whatever happened to Jiggle-Cheeks, anyway? He was here bragging about all the news coverage he was going to get, and then he didn't get any.

There was one writeup in the Digital Journal, but it only got 10 likes. Other 9/11 Truth articles at the same time got 1500 likes and 500 likes.

We can see your obsession with your Latin hunk again, is there a thread you cannot mention him? By the way, your Latin Hunk is on tour trough South America, talking to thousands of people on each presentation about how to become leaders in their community(unlike like Richard Gage with his little attended presentations...) Learn to google bitch.

I forgot, you are not on his newsletter list...Still crying for your man...that eill not get you to fuck Carol, I told you before, your bisexual fantasies are turning her off.

Hey goat fucker, here's the proof that RGT is telling the truth about Lynn Margulis.

"...In the 1960s Lynn Margulis became convinced that, while Darwin had successfully proved that all species of living things are descended from earlier ones, neither he nor his followers had ever satisfactorily explained the source of the variation that gives rise to new species." -- Lynn Margulis' Obituary, from Telegraph.co.uk.

Sabba, pray tell, how is traveling around lying about 9/11 improving anyone's life except Willie's?

I see you're quick to squeal "racism!" Hey, it took the Europeans and the North Americans years to figure out that Willie lies. I don't expect the South Americans to figure it out overnight. Nobody can conceive of the idea that somebody could be enough of a scumbag to steal his glory from the dead with a lying hero story like Willie does. I have proven that the four pillars of his hero story are all lies, and there's nothing you or he can do about that.

UtterFail, when I've been banned from internet forums it's been for telling the truth, not lies. For instance the truth about Willie Fraudriguez, which some people don't want to face. He's so cute with that Ricky Ricardo accent-- "Exploshuns!" and "This key saved hondreds of lives! Hondreds!"

And I note that your article does not say what you claim. Nowhere does it say she denied Darwin.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...And I note that your article does not say what you claim. Nowhere does it say she denied Darwin."

Another demonstration of the breadth and depth of your stupidity, douche-bag?

Read it again, Pinocchio.

"...In the 1960s Lynn Margulis became convinced that, while Darwin had successfully proved that all species of living things are descended from earlier ones, neither he nor his followers had ever satisfactorily explained the source of the variation that gives rise to new species." -- Lynn Margulis' Obituary, from Telegraph.co.uk.

Brian Goo Snug Butt said:UtterFail, when I've been banned from internet forums it's been for telling the truth, not lies.ahhh, is that why you were banned from Richard Gage's organization? we figure it out...Still Willie will never fuck you and Carol will never fuck you either. My money is that Willie may fuck Janice Good first before ever doing you.

The symmetry, totality and speed of collapse have not been explained; the pulverization of the concrete, the squibs, the arrested rotation of the tipping top on WTC2, and the collapses of the lower cores after they had survived the initial collapses have not been explained; the source of the sulfur in the FEMA Appendix C samples has not been explained, and the melted steel seen in the rubble has not been explained.

They've all been explained. They're the delusions of a failed janitor who lives with his parents and wears women's underwear.

RGT, how do Dr. Margulis's theories reject natural selection? They simply propose a new method of genetic change. They don't change the differential fitness argument.

Ian, you're a liar. NIST had admitted that "We are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse." The 9 mysteries of the collapse have not been explained.

The symmetry, totality and speed of collapse have not been explained; the pulverization of the concrete, the squibs, the arrested rotation of the tipping top on WTC2, and the collapses of the lower cores after they had survived the initial collapses have not been explained; the source of the sulfur in the FEMA Appendix C samples has not been explained, and the melted steel seen in the rubble has not been explained.

None of those things have been explained. NISt completely abandoned its investigation objective of explaining HOW the buildings collapsed.

Ian, you're a liar. NIST had admitted that "We are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse." The 9 mysteries of the collapse have not been explained.

Brian, the mysteries have been explained. You're a delusional ignorant liar, and that's why you believe in nonsense like "symmetrical collapse". No serious scientist is going to investigate your delusions, other than perhaps a psychiatrist.

The symmetry, totality and speed of collapse have not been explained; the pulverization of the concrete, the squibs, the arrested rotation of the tipping top on WTC2, and the collapses of the lower cores after they had survived the initial collapses have not been explained; the source of the sulfur in the FEMA Appendix C samples has not been explained, and the melted steel seen in the rubble has not been explained.

Repeating your delusional dumbspam isn't going to change the reality of the situation. You're pathetic lunatic and ignorant liar, and that's why you babble about this stuff.

"The collapse"? Brian, multiple buildings collapsed on 9/11. No wonder you're so confused about what happened that day. You don't even know what buildings fell.

How many of the widows' questions have you been able to get answered?

None, because I don't care. I have much better things to do with my life than care about a few nobodies like Laurie Van Auken. You, however, are the lunatic obsessed with the widows, and yet you can't get any of their questions answered. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

"...Condi was responsible to prevent 9/11. The CIA briefed her on 5/30 and 7/10. There was the famous 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack in US' memo on 8/6. There were all the other PDBs now under discussion. She did nothing. The CIA's Cofer Black said 'We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.' The CIA's Tenet and Blee said that if she had acted, 9/11 might have been prevented." -- Brian "drag queen for 9/11 troof" Good, lying his ass off at time stamp 20 September, 2012 08:17

"Condi committed perjury when she told the 9/11 Commission that the 'Bin Laden Determined to Strike in﻿ US' memo was not a warning. It warned of preparations for hijackings and planned attacks in the US. She got strong warnings from the CIA on 5/30 and 7/10; Tenet and Blee agreed that had she acted, 9/11 could have been prevented. Cofer Black said 'We did everything but pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.' See my video 'Condi﻿ Lied Under Oath to the 9/11 Widows.'" -- "punxsutawneybarney"

Now stop changing the subject and answer the question, scum.bag:

So goat fucker, you're either a plagiarist or "punxsutawneybarney." So which is it, scum.bag? Take your pick.

Ian, if gravity made the towers collapse on 9/11, why didn't it make the towers collapse on 9/10?

In what way were the collapses not symmetrical?

Thanks for showing what a scum bag you are, dissing the victims of 9/11 and celebrating their frustration--'cause you've got better things to do like watching baseball and getting your nails done.

UtterFail, please identify the "collapse mechanism" NIST claims that it "stands solidly behind". If NIST has explained how the towers collapsed, why did they say "We are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"?

I wish you would stop posting your used toilet paper by the yard on this blog. It's degrading the quality considerably.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...please identify the 'collapse mechanism" NIST claims that it "stands solidly behind'. If NIST has explained how the towers collapsed, why did they say 'We are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse'?"

I've already provided the evidence, jerkoff. Obviously, the quote you cite is false. Perhaps if you spent more time honestly reading the NIST Report, as opposed to cherry picking the document, you'd know something.

You've provided the evidence all right--you've provided the evidence that you have no idea what NIST's collapse mechanism is. You've also provided evidence that in fact NIST provided no collapse mechanism but only the empty claim that they did.

After all, if they explained the collapse, why did they then admit that "We are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"?

Ian, if gravity made the towers collapse on 9/11, why didn't it make the towers collapse on 9/10?

There were no 767 impacts on 9/10, nor massive subsequent fires. You don't know much about 9/11, do you?

In what way were the collapses not symmetrical?

In the same way that your hideous homeless-mullet haircut is not symmetrical. Things that are not even and equal across the plane are not "symmetrical". Learn what words mean before you make yourself look like a lunatic ignoramus using them.

Thanks for showing what a scum bag you are, dissing the victims of 9/11 and celebrating their frustration--'cause you've got better things to do like watching baseball and getting your nails done.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's hysterical because I'm pointing and laughing at him for his pathetic failure to get the widows questions answered. HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!

You've provided the evidence all right--you've provided the evidence that you have no idea what NIST's collapse mechanism is. You've also provided evidence that in fact NIST provided no collapse mechanism but only the empty claim that they did.

Gravity, Brian. Learn to Google. Or at least leave the science to those of us with college degrees. It's probably a bit beyond your mental capacity given that you lack the ability to mop floors correctly.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...You've provided the evidence all right--you've provided the evidence that you have no idea what NIST's collapse mechanism is. You've also provided evidence that in fact NIST provided no collapse mechanism but only the empty claim that they did."

More dumbspam, asshole?

Why don't you read the NIST Report--chapter 6.14, titled "Collapse Analysis of the Towers," to be specific.

Try to read the NIST Report honestly, as opposed to working backward from a predetermined conclusion and cherry picking the evidence in support of your idiotic conspiracy theory, while you ignore all the evidence that proves you're insane.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...After all, if they explained the collapse, why did they then admit that "We are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"?"

The alleged quote from the NIST Report you cite is crap. Alex Jones isn't a particularly credible source, gay boi.

You'll have to prove that one, ButtGoo. Why don't you contact Catherine Fletcher of NIST and ask her if she wrote "We are unable to provide a full explanation- of the total collapse"? Prove your claims and make a name for yourself, why don't you?

Ian, if the towers didn't fall from gravity on 9/10 becuase there were no 767s, then they wouldn't have fallen on 9/11 if there were no 767s and so your claim that they fell from gravity makes no sense.

How do you know my haircut is not symmetrical when you can only see one side of my head. You're not making any sense.

Thanks for bringing up section 6.1 of the NIST report, ButtGoo.

That's the part where they admit that their information was incomplete and imprecise.

That's where they admit that they discarded reasonable estimates of less severe damage because they did not generate a model collapse, and adopted the most severe estimates because they did. So they fudged the inputs to get the desired results.

That's where their collapse mechanism, "global collapse ensued", is stated.

That's where they say the building came down "essentially in free fall".

"Ian, if the towers didn't fall from gravity on 9/10 becuase there were no 767s, then they wouldn't have fallen on 9/11 if there were no 767s and so your claim that they fell from gravity makes no sense"

Yeah Ian, because if it made sense then that would mean the cause of the collapse of the Twin Towers was the impact, and fire from the 767s. So if your so-called logic makes sense then that mean's Brian is a raving dipshit asshole.

Instead of reading the NIST Report, section 6.14, you worked backward from a predetermined conclusion and cherry picked the evidence in support of your idiotic conspiracy theory, while you ignored all the evidence that proves you're a malevolent scat muncher.

And then to add insult to injury, you QUOTE MINED the Report.

Yes, you certainly did a bang up job of demonstrating your intellectual limitations.

Maybe your fellow malevolent liar, Alex Jones, can provide a few more fake NIST citations that he pulled out of his fat ass?

Ian, if the towers didn't fall from gravity on 9/10 becuase there were no 767s, then they wouldn't have fallen on 9/11 if there were no 767s and so your claim that they fell from gravity makes no sense.

Poor Brian. He doesn't understand how engineering or architecture works. I guess that's understandable given that he's a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

How do you know my haircut is not symmetrical when you can only see one side of my head. You're not making any sense.

Thanks for proving my point. The collapses were not symmetrical. Only a deranged glue-sniffing liar who lives with his parents would think the collapses were symmetrical.

Oh well...its still NIST ,as well as the rest of the legitimate scientific world who support collapse due to fire. Meanwhile, truthdom is still posting videos on youtube, using fake journals, and fleecing the gullible.

10 years have past:

-NIST underwent multiple peer reviews.-A dozen or so studies were published supporting collapse due to fire in reputable journals.-Truthers are still presenting discussions as peer reviewed, publishing in fake journals, and avoiding academia.

UtterFail, you don't know what I did. So I'll tell you what I did.In the spring of 2002 I read Mathys Levy's book, "Why Buildings Fall Down". Its chapter about the WTC put forth the Eagar zipper/pancake collapse theory, which seemed pretty screwy to me because of its obvious problems with zipper propagation speed, but I said to myself "Who am I to argue with MIT?" I was looking for excuses not to think about 9/11, and that pretty much ended my curiosity.

In the summer of 2004 I saw the pictures of the squibs. I dismissed them as a hoax. When I learned they were real, I accepted the explanation that debris made a piston, causing ejections of pressurized air. But after a few weeks I had to admit that the gas laws require that pressurized air exert its pressure equally in all directions, and the notion that a piston should force out air in isolated windows was absurd.

So I started looking into it, and I read the FEMA report, and I realized that the zipper/pancake theory that seemed to be conventional wisdom in the engineering community was unsatisfactory because it required that the truss anchors on the perimeter side be so weak they just let go, while the truss anchors on the core side had to be so strong that the falling floors pulled the cores down.

So I was much looking forward to the release of the NIST report in 2005 because I wanted credible answers. The first thing I learned about the report was the fact that their studies of the steel samples' heat experience contradicted their claims that the fires had weakened the steel.

Ian, I don't hate blacks and latinos. I hate torturers, perjurers, murderers, and con artists. Apparently you're the kind of racist who believes we can't expect blacks and latinos to act better than that.

The collapses were symmetrical. You seem to believe that if there is any degree of asymmetry to the collapse that it is not symmetrical. If that were true, then any degree of symmetry should rule out the presence of asymmetry. By your logic, my shoe is symmetrical because it's not perfectly asymmetrical--it has three eyelets on each side, its heel is symmetrical, and the bow knot has a loop on each side.

"In the summer of 2004 I saw the pictures of the squibs. I dismissed them as a hoax. When I learned they were real, I accepted the explanation that debris made a piston, causing ejections of pressurized air. But after a few weeks I had to admit that the gas laws require that pressurized air exert its pressure equally in all directions, and the notion that a piston should force out air in isolated windows was absurd."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Brian's clown show continues. In Brian's world, glass doesn't break.

Broken windows on the upper floors, dipshit. The air was forced out of the many broken windows of each tower.

The squibs would have been found, they weren't. The squibs would have had to have been cut into the steel. Nobody saw them installed (would have taken months), and nobody found evidence of these cuts in the wreckage later.

The collapses were symmetrical. You seem to believe that if there is any degree of asymmetry to the collapse that it is not symmetrical. If that were true, then any degree of symmetry should rule out the presence of asymmetry. By your logic, my shoe is symmetrical because it's not perfectly asymmetrical--it has three eyelets on each side, its heel is symmetrical, and the bow knot has a loop on each side.

Poor Brian. He's such a pathetic lunatic that he's babbling about how things are both symmetrical and not symmetrical at the same time. He's so desperate to cling to his delusions about 9/11 because 9/11 truth is the only thing that gives his worthless life meaning.

MGF, your effort to refute the fact that gas pressure is exerted equally in all directions with the irrelevant observation that windows break would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic.

Squeal squeal squeal!

Poor Brian. He's babbling hysterically about "squibs" because he's too much of an ignorant lunatic and liar to accept that he's been defeated on this question yet again.

"By "squibs" I mean the jets of pulverized building material that were seen exiting at 200 feet per second from isolated windows"

So with all of your "research" you still don't know what a squib is. A squib is a small explosive charge. There were none used, none found.

"sometimes as much as 40 stories below the active collapse zone."

There were windows broken in the lobby of each Tower, well below the impact zone. So if the lobby windows were broken, a basic application of common sense would say that windows above the lobby were also broken.

Each floor of the Twin Towers contained energy equal to a small atomic warhead which was released as each one fell into the next.

On the contrary, Ian, it is you that is so desperate to cling to your delusions about 9/11 that you lie to yourself about what is symmetrical and what is not. It is as if you argue that there is only black and white in the world, there's no such thing as gray, and anything that is not pure black is then white.

MGF, I know what a squib is, and I know what a squib is. You are playing dumb, arguing about semantics in an effort to cover over the lack of substance in your observations.

Nobody disputes that windows were broken. You are invoking an indisputable fact as if it did away with the equally indisputable but unexplained fact that isolated windows were broken, and this can not be explained by an upper piston pushing the air down. It doesn't do away with that fact, as anyone understands who was paying attention in his classes about the behavior of gases.

What is your source for your energetics number? There's a lot of nonsense about the energetics floating around. I heard that one MIT professor embarrassed himself mightily by estimating the potential energy available by placing the entire mass of the tower at 1360 feet.

On the contrary, Ian, it is you that is so desperate to cling to your delusions about 9/11 that you lie to yourself about what is symmetrical and what is not. It is as if you argue that there is only black and white in the world, there's no such thing as gray, and anything that is not pure black is then white.

My, such squealing!

Brian still hasn't produced a shred of evidence that any of the collapses were "symmetrical", so he's just posting hysterical spam in a desperate attempt to cover up the fact that I've pwn3d him yet again.

MGF, I know what a squib is, and I know what a squib is. You are playing dumb, arguing about semantics in an effort to cover over the lack of substance in your observations.

He's also been humiliated by MGF, so he's posting desperate spam about "squibs" too.

Nobody disputes that windows were broken. You are invoking an indisputable fact as if it did away with the equally indisputable but unexplained fact that isolated windows were broken, and this can not be explained by an upper piston pushing the air down. It doesn't do away with that fact, as anyone understands who was paying attention in his classes about the behavior of gases.

Brian babbling about the behavior of gases as if he ever got through a physics class.

Brian, you failed out of San Jose State and are an unemployed janitor, remember? Stop pretending you understand anything about the behavior of gases.

RGT, Brian's "squibs" hokum, bunkum and balderdash is easily explained, but don't expect a numbskull like Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good to grasp the obvious. After all, since when has he ever cared about the truth?

In fact, each tower was 110 stories tall; each floor a full acre in size (208' x 208' x 12').

Each floor, moreover, contained 519,128 cubic feet of air. As each acre-wide floor pancaked into the floor below, it pulverized the building's concrete and pushed a half million cubic feet of air per floor out through the windows.

That said, the air inside the elevator shafts and stairwells wouldn't have been forced out as easily. Instead it would have been trapped in the shafts and stairwells as the collapse above built up pressure, until it finally broke through at the path of least resistance. This accounts for the ejected air which can be seen several stories below the pancaking floors.

Ian, if you look at the videos you can see that the collapes were symmetrical. If they were not, toppling forces would have been generated and a partial collapse would have been more likely. This is probably what NIST experienced when they tried to run computer models of the collapses and found that they "did not converge".

Where did you get the idea that I "failed out" of San Jose State?

ButtGale, If you had bothered to read my post you wouldn't embarrass yourself so. Your "explanation" that pancaking floors pushed air below that ejected "out through the windows" is contradicted by the fact that the squibs emerged from isolated lone windows. As I explained, pancaking floors would eject air through ALL the windows, because that's how gas under pressure works.

Your elevator shaft fable doesn't work, as demonstrated by the fact that you must lie and claim that the squibs were "several stories below" the falling floors. In fact there were squibs 40, 50, 60 feet below the falling floors. A 60 foot length of elevator shaft does not develop sufficient pressure to rupture the walls.

It always amuses me when NIST's little helpers seek to explain what NIST doesn't even try to explain. Especially when they're so dumb that they believe thatg hundreds of people were trapped behind locked fire exit doors waiting for an Angel of God with a master key to come and set them free.

I never claimed the "squibs" and the air ejected from the windows are related. Learn to read, cretin.

The remainder of your post is nothing more than you citing yourself as an authority, which is worthless.

In fact, my explanation relies on Boyle's law, which, of course, is beyond your severe cognitive limitations. The elevator shafts could easily build up enormous pressure as the volume of trapped air was compressed by the collapse.

Should we expect less from a dork who doesn't understand something as simple as ΔT? Probably not.

UtterFail, I understand Boyle's Law (P1V1=P2V2)just fine. That's what I was invoking when I explained to you that when the floors are falling 60 floors above, 60 stories of elevator shaft are not compressed enough to blow the walls out.

You don't know what you're talking about and so you make a fool of yourself once again.

If you "understand Boyle's Law," why did you fuck up the explanation? In fact, YOU COPIED THE EQUATION FROM THE LINK I PROVIDED ABOVE--YOU GOD DAMNED FRAUD. YET, YOU DEMONSTRATE NO REAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE CONCEPT.

You need the Ideal Gas Law:

PV = nRT

In order to understand the inverse relationship between pressure and volume, you must acknowledge that at a constant temperature the volume of a fixed quantity of gas is inversely proportional to the applied pressure.

V = c(1/P)

Hence,

PV = c

The value of "c" is equal to nRT.

Thus, as the volume of the elevator shaft decreases, the pressure inside the elevator shaft INCREASES, cretin.

This is basic freshman in college chemistry--you arrogant, lying dork.

Again, the ambient air was trapped in the shafts and stairwells. As the collapse progressed, the pressure in the elevator shaft increased, until it finally broke through at the path of least resistance--the windows.

The only person who has no idea what he's talking about can be found between your chair and your semen-encrusted keyboard.

Ian, if you look at the videos you can see that the collapes were symmetrical. If they were not, toppling forces would have been generated and a partial collapse would have been more likely. This is probably what NIST experienced when they tried to run computer models of the collapses and found that they "did not converge".

False, false, and false. Poor Brian. He's so confused about 9/11. Then again, he is a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State, so it's not surprising that he doesn't understand what happened on 9/11.

Where did you get the idea that I "failed out" of San Jose State?

You told us you failed out of San Jose State.

UtterFail, I understand Boyle's Law (P1V1=P2V2)just fine. That's what I was invoking when I explained to you that when the floors are falling 60 floors above, 60 stories of elevator shaft are not compressed enough to blow the walls out.

Actually, you know nothing about Boyle's Law, which is understandable given that you're a mentally ill unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State.

You don't know what you're talking about and so you make a fool of yourself once again.

Poor Brian. He knows the truth movement is dead. He knows the widows will never get their questions answered. He knows that he ran away squealing and crying from a debate with Willie Rodriguez, and all he can do is babble hysterically about how those of us pointing and laughing at him have made fools of ourselves.

Sorry, Brian, but you've lost again, and all the squealing in the world won't change that fact.

Prediction: Now that the goat fucker's argument is destroyed, he'll resort to his old, tired straw man tactics, which consist of twisting my argument beyond recognition and attacking HIS twisted version of my argument.

For example, he'll take the following sentence,

"...Again, the ambient air was trapped in the shafts and stairwells. As the collapse progressed, the pressure in the elevator shaft increased, until it finally broke through at the path of least resistance--the windows."

and try to argue that I'm wrong because there were no windows in the elevator shaft, WHICH IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING AT ALL. I guarantee it.

ButtGoo, your flatulence does not change the fact that a collapsing floor 60 stories up an elevator shaft can not compress the air at the bottom of the elevator shaft sufficiently to blow out the walls.

Ian, I never told you I failed out of San Jose State. You're a liar.

GMS, the collapses were symmetrical. You take any asymmetry at all as if it refuted symmetry. It is as if there is only black and white, and anything grayer than perfect black is white.By that logic, any symmetry at all refutes asymmetry. By that logic, my left shoe is symmetrical because it has three eyelets on both sides, the heel is symmetrical, and the bow knot has a loop on each side.

The collapses were symmetrical. The dust clouds were symmetrical. How can asymmetrical collapses generate symmetrical dust clouds.

UtterFail, I don't need to twist your nonsense at all to make it nonsense. Your nonsense about "windows" does not apply when the squibs come out of isolated windows and not all the windows.

NIST did not credibly explain the squibs. Only a fool would believe the handwaving theories of an anonymous internet poster--a fool like you, I guess.

Where's old jiggle-cheeks, by the way? Some troll claimed he was touring South America but I can't find anything about it on the internet--I guess Old Jigglecheeks specializes in top-secret tours now, huh?

I'm wondering if I lost my shoe in his pulpy ass? Not that I want it back, but I'd like to know what happened to it.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...your flatulence does not change the fact that a collapsing floor 60 stories up an elevator shaft can not compress the air at the bottom of the elevator shaft sufficiently to blow out the walls."

Poor goat fucker. I've humiliated him and proven, once again, that he doesn't know a thing about chemistry or physics--in this case, Boyle's Law or the Ideal Gas Law. And now all he can do is attempt to twist my argument beyond recognition and attack his twisted version of my argument.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, squeals, "... I don't need to twist your nonsense at all to make it nonsense. Your nonsense about "windows" does not apply when the squibs come out of isolated windows and not all the windows."

See what I mean? Pathetic.

So goat fucker, if you know so much about "physics" and "chemistry," why did you botch the explanation and claim your argument is based on Boyle's Law, when, in fact, you need the Ideal Gas Law to explain the inverse relationship between the rising air pressure and the rapidly decreasing volume of the stairwells and elevator shafts (E.g.,V = c(1/P), where "c" is equal to nRT)?

Answer: You don't have a clue about physics or chemistry.

In fact, you fell for my trap HOOK, LINE AND SINKER!

Thus, we can add Boyle's Law and The Ideal Gas Law along with ΔT to the list of the elementary concepts you don't understand. Right, Mr. bogus "scientific reputation"?

And now you're trying to change the subject to William Rodriguez in order to bury your latest humiliating defeat in an avalanche of squealspam.

Pretendebunker SpamMasterDreck no doubt has a unique take on the Scientific Method, in order to justify NIST's refusal to release their model inputs. Please share how your opinion on NIST squares with the principles of reproducability/falsifiability when it comes to their report, Spambot. Be specific.

He also must think Springer (who published the Environmental Anomalies paper) is a sham scientific publisher, don't you, Master of Nothing? Care to elaborate, or will you just STFU again until your next lie, like Pat?

I forgot mention, why would you use Boyle's law when you're not talking about a differential pressure or volume? After all, P1 and V1 represent the initial pressure and volume, while P2 and V2 represent the second or final pressure and volume.

That's why The Ideal Gas Law is the preferred method for this particular explanation.

It does. Thanks for proving my point. The collapses were not symmetrical.

Where's old jiggle-cheeks, by the way? Some troll claimed he was touring South America but I can't find anything about it on the internet--I guess Old Jigglecheeks specializes in top-secret tours now, huh?

Your homosexual lust for Rodriguez is noted. Also, Brian, most people have normal lives and don't spend every waking hour posting spam on this blog. I, for instance, only stop by here for a few minutes each day to make sure I humiliate you and leave you squealing and crying...like right now.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...You didn't humiliate me, but I humiliated jiggle-cheeks. I proved that his hero story was a lie, that he was a fraud, and he ran away screaming and crying and didn't come back."

You didn't prove a damned thing. Your argument is based, as always, on logical fallacies. For example, the deliberate conflation of the words building and rubble.

I know how you operate. When you make a fool of yourself, like claiming that that a floor collapsing at floor 80 can break an isolated window at floor 20, then you pick a fight about something else (like did you or did you not say "In order to understand the inverse relationship between pressure and volume, you must acknowledge that at a constant temperature the volume of a fixed quantity of gas is inversely proportional to the applied pressure." and " you need the Ideal Gas Law to explain the inverse relationship between the rising air pressure and the rapidly decreasing volume of the stairwells and elevator shafts".

Then why would you use Boyle's law when you're not talking about a differential pressure or volume? After all, P1 and V1 represent the initial pressure and volume, while P2 and V2 represent the second or final pressure and volume.

You applied Boyle's law when all you needed was the Ideal Gas Law. Any competent scientist or engineer would have rejected the use of Boyle's law in this instance.

You, on the other hand...well, you're not competent to mop floors, let alone think at the level of a college freshman.

UtterFail, please identify any logical fallacies in my proofs that Willie Rodriguez's hero story is a lie and he is a fraud.

Let's start with Willie Jiggle-cheeks's claim that he "rescued" fifteen persons when all he did was show them to the street when they already knew their way to the street. Are you willing to try to prove that was fifteen rescues?

I proved that his hero story was a lie, that he was a fraud, and he ran away screaming and crying and didn't come back.

False.

Willie Rodriguez is a hero, and you're a failed janitor who lives with his parents.

You're a waste of time.

You say this all the time, Brian, and yet you've continued to spam this blog for almost 4 years now. It's almost as if you have nothing else to do, as you have no job, no friends, no family, and have been banned from every truther blog and forum for being a liar and a sex-stalking lunatic.

That's right, goat fucker, CHANGE THE SUBJECT AND TRY TO START THE MERRY-GO-ROUND UP AGAIN. I've already proven that your insane homosexual smear propaganda is nothing but a pile of deceptive nonsense based on deliberate misinterpretations of the historical evidence and elementary logic.

Should we expect less from a self-admitted propagandist? Probably not.

So you're going to reject all my evidence on the basis that it cites me as an authority, while you cite yourself as an authority. Truly desperate tactics, ButtGoo, when you're trying to defend the indefensible.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good whines, "...So you're going to reject all my evidence on the basis that it cites me as an authority, while you cite yourself as an authority. Truly desperate tactics, ButtGoo, when you're trying to defend the indefensible."

False. Your fallacious arguments are not "evidence."

My logic, on the other hand, is impeccable. As I've explained twice now, THERE'S NO NEED TO CITE BOYLE'S LAW, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH A DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE (E.g., P1/V1 or P2/V2). Thus, The Ideal Gas Law is appropriate for this instance.

If you had a real background in physical science, you would acknowledge this basic truth. Since you're an insane Internet liar...well, all we'll get from you are more lies and distortion.

The desperation, moreover, is yours and yours alone.

Tell us more about Boyle's Law, the Ideal Gas Law and ΔT, charlatan.

Once again, you FAIL, goat fucker.

Now go play in the freeway. After all, you're truly as waste of time, oxygen and skin.

Guitarbill said:Now go play in the freeway. After all, you're truly as waste of time, oxygen and skin.

You are so correct GB. I was just killing time at the airport. On my way to the next country. But could not avoid exposing my bitch once again. And as always... he disappears when I show up. I will be leaving in a few minutes so he can start his BS again. What can I say, he cannot live without me, Without mentioning me a single thread, he loves me to much. He should listen M Gregory Ferris and take his evidence against me to the NY Attorney General's Office. I will be waiting. Carry on

Hey Willie, your link doesn't work. The title's there, "Historias que cambian vidas", but there's no article. Do you suppose La Hora scrubbed the article after they learned you were a two-bit con artist? Are you still claiming you're the last survivor of the World Trade Center? Are you still going around shoving that silly key in people's faces? Do you wear lipstick on stage or are those Liberace lips natural?

UtterFail, you make no sense. Of course there's differential pressure if you're claiming that the pressure blew up the walls. As usual you don't know what you're talking about.

Boyle's Law and ΔT are trivial--any nine year old can understand them. I've never encountered an ideal gas and so I haven't given its laws any thought.

Willie Fraudriguez, you know as well as I that if I went to the AG of NY he'd claim lack of jurisdiction. I've proven that your hero story is a lie and you know it.

The 22-story collapse was the keystone of your narrative arc, which is why you freaked out so when I wanted to question you about it in 2007. Without the collapse you can't explain why you abandoned hundreds of people on floors 40 to 88 who (according to your story) would have been waiting for you to come and unlock the doors and let them out. Without the collapse you can't explain why the FDNY let you take your (allegedly lifesaving) key downstairs with you. They let you take it because they didn't need it. Those floors had already been evacuated without any help from you.

And of course there was no 22-story collapse. That story is a lie. If there was a collapse and your story was true, hundreds of people would have been killed on those collapse floors. But there was no collapse and they weren't killed--they just opened up the fire exit doors for themselves and came down the stairs.

You're a lying scumbag, Willie jiggle-cheeks. You'll be remembered in history as the scumbag who stole his glory from the dead.

My bitch, Brian said:"Hey Willie, your link doesn't work.... Are you still going around shoving that silly key in people's faces? Do you wear lipstick on stage or are those Liberace lips natural?

MY bitch, I have 10 minutes before boarding, so I will answer you.

The link opens fine for me. Try google instead if you do not how to do it, ask GuitarBill.

Yes , I am still showing the key as a memory of what happened around.

Nope, I do not wear lipstick, those are my natural lips, the same ones you will never be able to kiss. Nope, I do not wear make up on stage. I am usually sent to get make up when I go to Television interviews as it is required at all the studios for light purposes.

In your case, you wear it all the time like IAN said, with you it is a scene from "silence of the lambs"

Willie Fraudriguez, you know as well as I that if I went to the AG of NY he'd claim lack of jurisdiction. I've proven that your hero story is a lie and you know it.

Bullshit. That is the biggest lie ever. Everything concerning NY 9/11 victims , they have the jurisdiction. Why don't you try it? I beg you to do it.

The 22-story collapse was the keystone of your narrative arc...,

Keystone? What the hell are you talking about? For me is the most uninteresting part of my narrative.

which is why you freaked out so when I wanted to question you about it in 2007.

You must be dreaming. What are you smoking? I will never freak out with an idiot like you. You never dared to talk to me in person and you refused to wear a badge at the event of SF. You live in a fantasy world.

...Without the collapse you can't explain why you abandoned hundreds of people on floors 40 to 88 who (according to your story) would have been waiting for you to come and unlock the doors and let them out.

Abandoned??? only an idiot will think that. I have clarified many times, that when I heard "we lost 65!", after we heard what appeared to be an internal collapse, I was told that it was exactly that, by the people with me at the time. was I right? were they right?who knows, probably not, we did not have any windows. But I was commanded by Lim to go down and help with the man on the Wheel chair. Ed Beyea.

Without the collapse you can't explain why the NYPD let you take your (allegedly lifesaving) key downstairs with you.

Hey Idiot, NYPD was never with me, not once. I met Officer Lim and 2 other Firemen, they were Chiefs, it was the first time I saw them during the ordeal.They did not know about the key and Lim knew me from the years at the Center and my weekends cleanup detail of the Police Desk Area..

But there was no 22-story collapse. It was a lie.

Maybe not, who knows, I did not have any windows, and absolutely yes, we all speculated that it was without any visual evidence.

If there was a collapse and your story was true, hundreds of people would have been killed on those collapse floors.

who knows. I do not know.

But there was no collapse and they weren't killed--they just opened up the fire exit doors for themselves and came down the stairs.

Brian "Poster child for Dunning-Kruger effect" Good lies, "...you make no sense. Of course there's differential pressure if you're claiming that the pressure blew up the walls. As usual you don't know what you're talking about."

"... As I've explained twice now, THERE'S NO NEED TO CITE BOYLE'S LAW, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH A DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE (E.g., P1/V1 or P2/V2). Thus, The Ideal Gas Law is appropriate for this instance."

Since no measurement of differential pressure is available for the collapse of the Twin Towers, it's nonsense to use Boyle's Law, which relies solely on differential pressure and differential volume.

Proof?

Show me the values for P1, P2, V1 and V2.

You can't?

Then STFU--you incompetent jackass.

That's why the only law that applies is The Ideal Gas Law.

V = c(1/P)

where "c' is equal to nRT.

Is it any wonder that you're a junior college dropout? After all, you're brain dead.

The collapses were symmetrical. The dust clouds were symmetrical. How can asymmetrical collapses generate symmetrical dust clouds.

The fact that you think clouds of debris are symmetrical only underscores the gold medal quality of your mental gymnastics. You can say symmetrical over and over again, but considering you can't actually address the asymmetry, nor give an objective way of defining symmetry as opposed to asymmetry, and instead just hand wave it away as always, is telling.

The fact is Brian, sane people use words when they know what they mean. And when someone presents evidence that someone doesn't meet criteria of a given adjective they accept it and change their beliefs. Sadly, your beliefs never change regardless of the facts.

GutterBall--right, you said there was no differential pressure. But you also said that the pressure blew out the walls of the elevator shaft. How do you blow out the walls without differential pressure? You don't know what you're talking about.

GMS, the clouds are symmetrical. Look at the videos. If you think they're not, please identify which direction they favor-N,S,E,or W.

You can identify symmetry objectively as % symmetry v. % asymmetry. All you guys have been claiming that 99% symmetry is not symmetrical. But since 99% asymmetrical is obviously not symmetrical, clearly your claims are not objective.

When I've demonstrated that I can define the term more precisely than you can, to claim I don't know what the word means is not smart.

You guys are the debunkers who can't recognize an obvious con artist like Willie Fraudriguez.

Willie jello-neck, the 22-story collapse is the keystone of your story, as you well know--because when you take it out your whole story falls down.

You freaked out in 2007, Willie. You threatened to cancel your appearance in Oakland--that's how scared you were of my questions.

You kept on telling the story of the 22-story collapse long after you had to know that it was impossible and couldn't have happened. You told it because without it, your story falls apart.

If you really wanted to go on up to the Windows on the World you could have gone down one flight, switched over to another stairwell, and climbed up as far as 89. You needed all those hundreds of people on 40 to 88 to be dead so you had no responsibility to open the doors and let them out. But they weren't dead. They're not in the death statistics. They're not on the lists of names. But 7 years after 9/11 you still thought they were dead?

Yes, Willie, I know that the people on floors 40 through 88 did not die. There were 15,000 civilians under the impact zone--91 persons per floor. If floors 65 to 43 collapsed like you said they did, and if 3 of the four doors were locked like you claim, then 1500 people on those floors would have died. As it is, about 100 office workers from all 160 floors under the impact zone died.

If you had saved hundreds on the lower 39 floors, then a couple of thousand should have died on floors 40--88 because you never let them out. But they didn't die, because they didn't need you to let them out, and your claim that you saved hundreds is a lie.

Brian Good said: "You kept on telling the story of the 22-story collapse long after you had to know that it was impossible and couldn't have happened. You told it because without it, your story falls apart."

Honestly, you coming out with the reasoning of somebody having to know something does not makes sense. Rodriguez told it because he believed it and he has said so very clearly, he even goes further stating that he may be totally wrong because he was speculating like everybody else at the time. He points out he doesn't know and that makes him more honest that you will ever be.

Rodriguez was a Hero on 9/11 and now he is a Hero for helping others after the event and that is something you will never be able to take away with your obsessive attacks.

Poor Brian, Rodriguez has been the cause of all of his troubles since 2007.

Brian Good has been rejected from every major 9/11 group for this reason. He has been "outed" from Richard Gage's group twice for this reason. Not even the NY Attorney General will take his calls. It must be lonely for him in Palo Alto...

Willie jello-neck's email was quoted in an email by Carol Brouillet entitled "Re: 'What the hell are you doing?‏'" Oct 19, 2007, at 12:12 PM that was sent to many recipients, probably including Willie jiggle-butt himself. Willie said he lacked interest in the upcoming presentation at Oakland, that the presentations required him to relive the emotional toll, and requested that if Carol could not work it out, he should be removed from the event.

Rodriguez had no right to believe in the 22-story collapse. There were not 1500 victims from those floors. There was no collapse. He made no effort to investigate the plausibility of his impossible and self-serving story.

Brian Good said: "Willie jello-neck's email was quoted in an email by Carol Brouillet entitled "Re: 'What the hell are you doing?‏'" Oct 19, 2007, at 12:12 PM that was sent to many recipients, probably including Willie...

And still no evidence of your statements. Thanks for proving my point."Probably including Willie" doesn't cut it either.

Willie said he lacked interest in the upcoming presentation at Oakland, that the presentations required him to relive the emotional toll, and requested that if Carol could not work it out, he should be removed from the event.

There it goes, understandable that it is an emotional toll to relive the event, and still no evidence to support your statements.

Rodriguez had no right to believe in the 22-story collapse.

Really? who are you to decide on others beliefs? You have no standing whatsoever to judge victims of the event. You were not there and you did not experienced the trauma of the event first hand.

Willie is a blatant con artist who steals his glory from the dead.

Willie is a recognized Hero, loved by the 9/11 families and survivors. A close, very tight group, united by the same experiences. You ran away when offered to meet some of them several times in the past, you have no glory.

Your wouldn't be trying to pick a fight over a trivial issue in an attempt to distract from the fact that I have proven that Scumbag Willie Fraudriguez's hero story is a lie from beginning to end, would you?

Willie had no right to believe in a 22-story collapse because there was no evidence for it, because it was impossible, and because (as I explained above) it was extremely self-serving since it neatly tied up all the loose ends of his fraudulent hero story.

I have standing to judge the impossibility of Willie's tale, and I have standing to judge the fact that the 22-story collapse fantasy was necessary to support his lying claims.

Willie is a blatant con artist, and I have proven that his hero story is a lie.

When I first started raising questions about Willie's bogus claims many years ago I expected that I might get a communication from family members asking me to leave him alone. I never did.

Sorry, your hero is a two-bit con artist, nothing more. And if he ever dares to show his bloated face in the San Francisco Bay Area he knows what I will do.

Brian Good said:Your wouldn't be trying to pick a fight over a trivial issue ... You find it trivial when we point your lies and lack of evidence to substantiate your claims?

Willie had no right to believe in a 22-story collapse because there was no evidence for it, because it was impossible...

Well his answer was loud and clear. He believed to be correct at the time as well as the others with him. Hw conceded he may have been wrong due to lack of evidence and visual corroboration. More man than you ever will in accepting the error.

I have standing to judge the impossibility of Willie's tale, and I have standing to judge the fact that the 22-story collapse fantasy was necessary to support his lying claims.

You have no standing whatsoever.

Willie is a blatant con artist, and I have proven that his hero story is a lie.

Willie is a recognized Hero, loved by the 9/11 families and survivors. A close, very tight group, united by the same experiences. You ran away when offered to meet some of them several times in the past, you have no glory.

When I first started raising questions about Willie's bogus claims many years ago I expected that I might get a communication from family members asking me to leave him alone. I never did.

Sure, and you expected the families also to give you support in your quest for a new investigation and you got none either.

Sorry, your hero is a two-bit con artist, nothing more. And if he ever dares to show his bloated face in the San Francisco Bay Area he knows what I will do.

Yes we know Brian, you are going to put on your best set of panties, the reddest lipstick out there and some vaseline for your ass and then go try to meet your Latin Hunk... or maybe, you will just run away like you have been doing ever since.

The evidence is clear to all the people who got the email. Willie said the Oakland appearance did not interest him and threatened to ask to be removed from the event.

What Willie believed at the time is not the issue. What he believed five and six years later is the issue. He had no right to believe in a 22-story collapse at that time because it was obviously not true.

I have not only standing but an obligation as an honest and rational citizen to judge the blatant lies of a fraudulent con artist to be untrue.

Your claim that the families have given no support to calls for a new investigation is not just untrue, it is ignorant. The Jersey Widows called for investigation of the Behrooz Sarshar story recently, and Lorie Van Auken and Donna Marsh O'Connor signed Jon Gold's petition recently.

"When you make a fool of yourself, like claiming that that a floor collapsing at floor 80 can break an isolated window at floor 20, "

He isn't claiming 1 collapsing floor. In WTC2 it was the entire top 3rd of the building which plunged into the lower 2/3. With WTC1 it was the top 1/7th of the building.

That is a lot of weight, and this is how air was blasted out of various windows of lower floors. The debris flying out of some of the windows is evidence of structural damage of the inner core, and the surrounding walls.

You are a failure, Brian. It's why Carol likes Willie so much more than you.

Ian, I have proven that Willie's claim that he saved hundreds of lives is a lie. The fact that you can't do the simple math of 15,000 civilians and 100 dead (many of them trapped in elevators) and understand that Willie can not possibly have saved hundreds throws much doubt on your claims of an MBA.

The only reason you make the ridiculous claim that I have a sexual obsession with a jello-necked, jiggle-cheeked, Liberace-lipped, walking manboob-on-legs like Willie is because you cannot refute me on factual groundd and must resort to fantasy ad hominems.

Ian, I have proven that Willie's claim that he saved hundreds of lives is a lie.

False.

The fact that you can't do the simple math of 15,000 civilians and 100 dead (many of them trapped in elevators) and understand that Willie can not possibly have saved hundreds throws much doubt on your claims of an MBA.

False.

The only reason you make the ridiculous claim that I have a sexual obsession with a jello-necked, jiggle-cheeked, Liberace-lipped, walking manboob-on-legs like Willie is because you cannot refute me on factual groundd and must resort to fantasy ad hominems.

Does a hero travel around the world lying about his heroism? Does a hero steal his story and his glory from the dead?

Willie is a con artist who goes around taking money for a fraudulent story. Your admiration for him only shows your own corruption. Probably you think fleecing the gullible is a noble exercise in making markets more efficient.

Wasn't it not too long ago Brian was talking about the "perfect symmetry" of the clouds & WTC 7? Huh..I guess Brian had to scramble to find a way to maintain the delusion, hence his straw-grasping about the relativity of symmetry via his perplexed treatment of shoes. Who knew they made both right & left?

GMS, I never said anything was perfect. Your quote is invented. You guys were claiming that anything less than perfect symmetry was not symmetrical. By putting the shoe on the other foot and showing that anything less than complete asymmetry is not symmetry I showed the illegitimacy of that claim.